Tuesday, June 23, 2009

Factors Deterrent to Disability Benefits Application

Claimants often get frustrated on how sluggish applications before the Social Security Administration can be.

It is a common knowledge that the disability determination process is long and drawn out. This is because there is no period imposed within which an examiner should decide a claim for disability benefits. Some cases take weeks while others take years to finish.

Unfortunately, a number of factors hinder in processing an application. Some of them are as follows:

1. The disability process for Social Security disability and supplemental security income is quite long by itself.

As applicants begin to process their application, they often face difficulty of receiving medical records and other information regarding their disability status.

2. Applicants submit incomplete medical history or fail to submit one.

Medical evidence is necessary to determine the validity of the applicant’s mental and physical condition. Application is approved if such condition restricts the applicant’s normal daily activities. The restrictions are often referred to as residual functional capacity.

Only impairments which met the SSA’s definition of disability are approved.

3. Applicant’s failure to submit physician contact information.

If the doctor who treated the applicant could not be located, copies of diagnosis, x-rays, MRIs, patient files, etc. could not be retrieved.
4. Slow turnover of medical records by doctors and hospitals.

For claimants with have included doctor’s contact information in their application, the common problem is that many medical professionals or institutions are slow in responding to requests for medical records.

5. Applications put to a halt until result of treatment.

Some applications are put on hold until after the results of physical therapy, surgery or treatment had been ascertained.

6. Denial of the initial application

Delay would also be encountered when initial application is denied. In case of denial, the claimant may appeal or file a reconsideration which would add up to more months of waiting.

All these factors contribute in slowing down the disability determination process. As a wise advice, though, applicants must seek assistance from a disability attorney to help them navigate through the intricacies of the process. In doing so, the claim is quickly processed and approval rate is greater.

Thursday, June 18, 2009

Truck driver rear ends trailer

Vehicle accident happens due to various reasons. In every accident, authorities study the crash scene to determine who was at fault and what caused the accident.

In a big crash at Interstate 5 near El Dorado Avenue, a truck driven by Richard Corey rear ended James Persman’s big rig. The incident happened due to Corey’s failure to slow down in time when Persman’s trailer reduced speed to give way to farm tractors included in a certain demonstration.

Due to the impact, Corey sustained major injuries. He was rushed to the Coalinga Regional Medical Center for treatment.

The California Highway Patrol, however, did not issue citation pending investigation of the crash. It could have been that Corey was guilty of tailgating since had no time to maneuver his truck when Persman reduced speed.

Permsman, on the other hand, could have been at fault for abruptly slowing down. The organizers of the demonstration could also be faulted for failure to provide necessary signs or caution for such activity.

CHP were looking into all these scenarios to determine who among the parties was negligent. In the event that Corey was found at fault, he should bear his loss. If some other party was liable, Corey could pursue a personal injury case against such party.

Monday, June 15, 2009

Opt-in action and an opt-out class action distinguished

In pursuing a case, parties must consider both substantive and procedural aspects of it. More often than not, a case is dismissed due to technicalities meaning certain procedures are not followed or observed.

Technicalities would often get you no matter how well you laid arguments or presented your evidence. Parties must be very cautious when dealing with technicalities as they could break or make the case.

Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) opt-in action and an opt-out class action are procedural terms parties should be familiarized with.

The case of Haro v. City of Rosemead, clarified the difference between the two actions.

In this case, the California Court of Appeal noted that FLSA actions are collective actions where potential plaintiffs must opt-in in order to be a part of the action. It means that the individual plaintiffs must give their written consent to be a member of the class. On the other hand, potential plaintiffs must opt out if they do not desire to be a member of the class.

The appellate court also cleared that the difference between the opt-in versus the opt-out feature is critical. Other differences are the tolling of the statute of limitations, trial court’s involvement in the process of notifying potential additional plaintiffs, and the definitions of parties “similarly situated.”

Due to these differences, the court ruled that FLSA actions could not be maintained as class actions. This clarification would be beneficial to parties who would have similar issues as that of the Haro case.

Wednesday, June 3, 2009

Dangers of Bisphenol A

Bisphenol A (BPA) is an organic compound used in making epoxy resins and polycarbonate plastics. It is used in many food and drink packaging applications. Its dangers to man had been discovered in 1933.

Because of its known harmful effects especially to children, Democratic Senators Fran Pavley of Agoura Hills and Carol Liu of Pasadena authored Senate Bill 797 banning the use of BPA. The bill passed the Senate Committee on Environmental Quality with the votes 21-16.

Although the Food and Drug Administration has found traces of BPA on baby containers less dangerous, its effect on infants is unimaginable. A study on animal revealed that BPA intake and/or exposure interferes with infant hormone levels.

Infants and toddlers are the most susceptible to this kind of harmful substance. Their tender age make them defenseless to fight for their rights and protect their safety and security. It is up to their parents or authorities, in general, to protect their well-being and safeguard their rights.

The passage of the bill is one step closer to making all baby containers BPA free.

If anyone has been harmed by using BPA food or drink containers, a product liability lawyer can facilitate your claim against the manufacturer or person liable.